Lawyers challenging last year’s pension reform law said they will make another attempt to get an expedited ruling in the case in the wake of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in the retiree health insurance case.

Lawyers said they believe the ruling in the health insurance case — called the Kanerva decision after one of the plaintiffs — effectively nullifies the state’s argument that Illinois’ severe financial problems allow pensions to be changed, despite the pension protection clause of the state Constitution.

At a hearing Tuesday, the lawyers said they will be filing new motions that will bring the issue before Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz.

“In the health care (case) and in this case, the change in pension is clearly a diminishment and impairment protected by the Constitution,” said Don Craven, who brought one of the five lawsuits challenging the pension reform law.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court said the state cannot charge retirees premiums for their state-subsidized health insurance. People who retire with 20 or more years of service are entitled to premium-free health insurance. The court said a state law passed to charge all retirees premiums for their health insurance represented a diminishment of retirement benefits prohibited by the Constitution.

The pension reform law also changes benefits, such as raising the retirement age and ending automatic, 3 percent compounded increases in retirement benefits. Attorneys for the state argue the state has sovereign powers that allow those changes because of the state’s financial problems.

“The Supreme Court could hardly have been clearer in destroying the police powers argument in the Kanerva case,” said attorney John Myers, who brought another of the pension reform lawsuits. “What the Supreme Court is saying is you have to fund this, now figure it out. That destroys the whole sovereign powers defense, which is, ‘We don’t have to figure it out, we can impair pensions.’ ”

Attorney General Lisa Madigan has said the ruling in the health insurance case does not affect the pension reform case because they involve different legal issues.

Craven said this new motion could enable the pension reform case to get to the Supreme Court earlier than is now considered likely. Before the health insurance ruling, Belz set out a lengthy schedule for lawyers on both sides to conduct preliminary work on the cases. Lawyers for the state indicated they want to use six expert witnesses to buttress their case. Aaron Maduff, another attorney challenging the law, said it involved “tremendous, tremendous” preliminary work.

“It’s a huge amount of material,” he said.

At this point, however, the schedule is still in place and a ruling at the circuit court level isn’t expected until next year.

The next hearing in the pension reform lawsuit is scheduled for Sept. 4.